Now reading:
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban of ‘Assault Weapons’

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban of ‘Assault Weapons’

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland’s ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland’s law aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it’s “unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment.”

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.

Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, “It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment.” She added that the majority opinion “clearly ignores the Supreme Court’s guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are ‘in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'”

The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s – one of the weapons banned under Maryland’s law – in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes. Asked about an appeal, Baker said the NRA is exploring all options.

But Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, said the decision is “overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional.”

“Maryland’s law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence,” Banach wrote in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld the ban in 2015, but a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that she didn’t apply the proper legal standard. The panel sent the case back to Blake and ordered her to apply “strict scrutiny,” a more rigorous test of a law’s constitutionality. The state appealed to the full appeals court.

Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre that killed 20 children and six educators in Connecticut. King mentioned the massacre at the start of the ruling.

“Both before and after Newtown, similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings in places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there,” King wrote. He listed the 2012 shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino, California; and the shootings last year at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, where 49 people were killed and 53 injured.

King also noted that enacting the law is “precisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court.”

“Simply put, the State has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the (Firearms Safety Act) and Maryland’s interest in protecting public safety,” King wrote.

Join the discussion

Comment navigation

“….extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war….” What self-indulging, elitist academic, acumen deficient, idiocy from one or more ‘magpies in robes!’ That “dastardly” 2nd Amendment makes no reference to “weapons of war,” makes no reference to “assault weapons,” makes no reference to “military style weapons,” it does, by INTELLIGENT design state ….keep and bear ARMS shall NOT be infringed! If some magpie can designate what constitutes ARMS, then Americans would be “legally” restricted to Muskets or BB guns. Those ‘Framers’ knew full well that the current ARMS of the day would not remain single shot flintlocks, or, as with these liberal dweebs, they would have UNINTELLIGENTLY said “keep and bear flintlocks!” As for me and mine, my “wife” won’t allow it, or I would have a tank parked in the front yard….however, given the “small arms” allowed or not, if necessary, that tank can be acquired in short order!

The answer to that is MOVE. How many firearms businesses moved from states that passed asinine laws. Time for Beretta and similar businesses to leave. Gun owners who are able should move. Some people would be in commuting distances from Pa. and WVa.

Au contrare me compatriot nimrod. Moving for many is not an option. Get involved, get active, petition what ‘little’ government you have. Be a ‘thorn in the side’ of any whack legislator that would deny you your “God Given Right” to self-defense by ANY appropriate means! In my case, that “dastardly” 2nd Amendment is appreciated, but NOT required. We are FINALLY getting a hearing, in my state, allowing Constitutional Carry. I have little gripe with my state thinking its population safer by requiring me to have a paper ‘authorizing me’ to “carry arms.” My primary beef is that they want to CHARGE me a fee for subjecting myself to that process – exponentially increasing in cost since I first acquired one – $15 to now over $80! I WILL remain armed, I just will no longer PAY for the ‘right’ to do so…..

To firewagon, et. al. FYI: NAGR just announced that hours ago, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu signed NAGR-supported Constitutional Carry into law! This puts New Hampshire together with the 10 other states that recognize the Second Amendment as the only permit a law-abiding citizen should need to exercise their right to keep and bear arms!

These radical RETARDS are not worthy of being allowed to hold the SUPREMELY lofty position of SERVICE as interpreters of our laws, or especially the RIGHTS granted to us by our brilliant founders. WHICH are to be “NEVER INFRINGED”. It is blatantly obvious to even the most simple people that these so-called “judges” are IDIOTS. AND THAT they do not possess the mental capacity to comprehend the intent of our bill of rights – and ESPECIALLY of EVERY citizen’s rights to INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. My dog is ten times more intelligent than these MORONS. Oh WAIT!! I don’t have a dog anymore! Well… there ya go.

I’ve read every comment left here today, and I need to add nothing to the debate – as it’s all been covered very aptly. EXCEPT that if I could have my voice heard by these mental midgets, I would loudly declare that their decision is 100% incorrect and unconstitutional, and therefore I will be disregarding their STUPID proclamation as invalid = UNLAWFUL – and they can come TRY to pry my guns from my cold dead hands. Put simply (as they’re obviously far too DUMB to grasp intelligence and reason); they can “suck it”. THEY are NOT my masters. I am. Being born – as a natural born citizen of the United States of America.. has granted me the LEGAL right to tell these unelected jerk-wad freaks to “go screw”.

These wing-nuts have FAR lower IQs than I have, and I refuse to be DICTATED to by inferiors. Inferiors who appear to not have the brains to pour piss out of a boot.

Btw, I have made the same argument on innumerable occasions as gary365 did here. I concur completely and would LOVE to debate anyone on the planet who would BEG to differ. I’d leave them in a steaming pile. Btw#2; I never used nukes as a debate point – but howitzers and tanks. BUT why not consider nukes, as the clinically insane Kim Jung Un is allowed to have them?? Is his argument that he is the “spokesman” and “guardian” for/ of an entire NATION?? Well then just who is it who has determined that any nation’s *defense* is more important than any individual(s)?

Gary sorry I misread your comment I assumed you were saying the only reason we could own a gun was to oppose a tyrannical govt I apologize for my lack of understanding of your comment. also knickers starts with a k.

I didn’t see this as bad news. First off I don’t live in Maryland. Second and more importantly this decision is screaming for a Supreme Court review. With a Trump Supreme Court, I see a good chance that not only will this decision be overturned, but it could well affirm that we do indeed have the right to bear arms and it could undo the stupid magazine capacity limits in many states. In other words, we would need a decision like this to get the issue in front of the Supreme Court. The gun grabbers have won this battle, but it may well cost them the war!

I learned many years ago that the democrats could care less about any human beings life. Any life is worthless in their eyes. (EG look at Emanuel in Chicago)
Look at the Kate Stinely law that the DEMOCRATS REFUSED to sign into law.
They could care less about her or anyone else killed. To a democrat your just a person and they as a group could care less.
Not so with President Trump.
This President cares.
Those that vote these jerkoff politicians in deserve what they get.

Quite a few Founders and Framers stated why the 2nd Amendment was written. I believe Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the SCOTUS by Pres. Madison, said it quite well.

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

The ONLY means for the people to keep a check on rogue authotities is by having military type weapons. That was the primary intent, not merely for hunting, protection against criminals, or sport, as valid as those reason were.

Well now, I guess that the fools don’t really know much about war do they. The first weapons of war were fists, then stones and sticks, followed quickly by knives, then javelins (spears not AMC musclecars). After a long while, we developed guns and cannons. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons were developed around the time of our revolution so the writers of the constitution knew about them. They were expensive so congress didn’t buy them, but they were available. Then along comes Armalite. They developed the Armelite Rifle No 15 (AR-15 for short) for hunters and sportsmen. The military liked what they saw and asked if it could be modified for military use. They modified it and then it became a military weapon. Since it is already illegal to kill someone, other than in self defense, why do we need more laws regarding guns. I am glad I don’t live in MD anymore as the dems have ruined it. Sorry gov Hogan, you are the only one sane in Annapolis.

There are a lot of people out there who believe the AR in AR-15 stands for assault rifle, it does not. It stands for ArmaLite rifle, the original manufacturer. This unfortunate name of AR-15 has lead a number of people to mistakenly believe it is an assault rifle, it is not.